California
California Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 24, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 24, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
You can legally wear and use smart glasses to record video in California, but California is an all-party consent state. Recording the audio of a private conversation requires everyone's consent under Penal Code § 632. Video-only capture in public is generally lawful; audio capture of a confidential communication without full consent is both a crime and a civil wrong.
Are smart glasses legal to own and wear in California?
Smart glasses are legal to purchase, own, and wear in California. No California statute bans the devices, classifies them as surveillance equipment, or restricts their sale. Devices like Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses are available at retail and may be worn in public without any special permit or registration.
The legal questions do not concern ownership. They concern what you do with the glasses once they are on your face. Smart glasses differ from a phone held up to record because they are visually indistinguishable from ordinary eyewear. A person nearby has no way of knowing, from appearance alone, whether you are recording. That invisibility is exactly what California law targets in several overlapping statutes.
California's recording laws are part of the Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code §§ 630 through 638.55. The centerpiece is Penal Code § 632, which prohibits intentionally recording a confidential communication without the consent of all parties. Smart glasses that capture audio while appearing to be ordinary eyewear are a natural fit for this prohibition whenever the wearer records a private conversation.
Recording video in public vs. private spaces
The starting point for video-only recording is the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine. In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court explained that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places: "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection," but "what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." Someone walking on a sidewalk, shopping in a store, or sitting in a park cannot reasonably expect that no one will look at them or capture their image.
This means that using smart glasses to record video in a public setting is generally lawful in California. The federal Wiretap Act reinforces this: the Act reaches only "aural transfers" containing the human voice. Silent video recording without audio does not constitute an interception under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(18), and no California statute separately prohibits video-only capture in a public space.
Private spaces change the calculation entirely. Recording video inside a private home, a medical office, or other location where persons have a genuine expectation of privacy from visual observation can give rise to civil liability for intrusion upon seclusion, even if no audio is captured and even if the footage is never shared. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, the intrusive act itself creates liability when it would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person." Pointing smart-glasses cameras into a private residence or recording inside a private office without permission is the kind of conduct that satisfies that standard.
The California video landscape also includes Penal Code § 647(j), the voyeurism statute, which applies specifically to certain locations. That section is covered in detail below.
For the broader analysis of what California law says about recording in public places, see the California Laws on Recording in Public page.
Audio recording and California's all-party consent rule
This is where smart-glasses use in California carries real legal risk. California is an all-party consent state. Penal Code § 632 makes it a crime to intentionally and without the consent of all parties use an electronic device to eavesdrop upon or record any confidential communication.
The key term is "confidential communication." The statute defines it as a communication carried on in circumstances that reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to those present. This is not limited to whispered conversations. A meeting between two colleagues in a closed-door conference room, a one-on-one conversation in a restaurant booth, a discussion in a private office, or a consultation with a professional are all confidential communications under § 632. By contrast, a loud exchange in the middle of a busy street or a statement made at a public rally carries no reasonable expectation of confidentiality.
Smart glasses create a specific problem for audio compliance. When someone is recording a conversation with a phone, the raised phone provides visible notice that recording may be occurring. Smart glasses provide no such visual cue. The capture LED on Meta Ray-Ban glasses (a white LED near the right frame that activates when the camera is recording) is the only external indication, and it is small enough that many people nearby will not notice it. California courts treat covert recording without consent as a straightforward § 632 violation; the invisibility of the device does not excuse the absence of consent.
The federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), permits one-party consent recording at the federal level, meaning a participant in a conversation can record it without telling the others. But California law is stricter, and the federal Wiretap Act does not preempt stricter state all-party consent laws, so California's rule governs recordings made in California. California's all-party rule applies to anyone in the state, regardless of where the other participants are located. In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006), the California Supreme Court held that California's all-party consent standard applies to calls involving any California party, even when the other person is in a one-party state.
Practical implication for smart-glasses wearers: if you are in California and your glasses are capturing audio of any conversation in which participants would reasonably expect privacy, you need affirmative consent from every participant before you start recording. The safest approach is a clear, audible verbal statement before the recording begins. For the full framework, see the California recording laws overview.
Where recording is a crime: voyeurism and private spaces
California Penal Code § 647(j) makes it a misdemeanor to use a concealed camera of any type, which can include recording glasses, to secretly record another identifiable person who may be in a state of full or partial undress, without that person's consent or knowledge, in a bathroom, bedroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, tanning booth, or any other area where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade that person's privacy.
The critical word is "concealed." Smart glasses, which appear to be ordinary eyewear, are the definition of a concealed recording device when the wearer does not disclose that they are recording. Under § 647(j), the fact that a device looks like an ordinary consumer item is not a defense. The offense turns on the location, what is being recorded, the absence of the person's consent or knowledge, and the intent to invade privacy, not on how obvious the device appears.
The federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1801, establishes an additional federal floor for recording on federal property. California's § 647(j) extends equivalent protection to all non-federal locations within the state.
Violations of § 647(j) carry up to six months in county jail for a first offense. Repeat offenses, and cases involving a minor victim, carry up to one year in county jail, a fine of up to $2,000, or both. A conviction for voyeurism-related offenses can also trigger sex offender registration requirements in California.
The prohibition is not limited to intimate areas. Any space where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation can trigger § 647(j) liability. A private office, a hotel room, or a home interior can qualify depending on the circumstances of the recording.
Facial recognition and biometric data in California
California does not have a standalone biometric privacy statute equivalent to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14. However, California's consumer privacy framework under the California Consumer Privacy Act as amended by Proposition 24 (the CPRA) includes biometric information in its definition of sensitive personal information and requires specific disclosures and opt-out rights when such data is collected.
Facial geometry data captured by smart glasses or processed by facial-recognition apps running on connected devices constitutes biometric information under California law. If a smart-glasses user runs facial-recognition software that identifies strangers and stores or uses that data, the user or the software provider may face obligations under the CPRA depending on the commercial context.
The broader risk was demonstrated publicly in October 2024, when Harvard students showed that Meta Ray-Ban glasses combined with a third-party facial-recognition search engine could identify strangers in real time and retrieve home addresses and partial Social Security numbers within minutes of capturing a face. Meta's glasses provided only the camera; the identification was done by third-party software. But the demonstration illustrates what becomes possible when smart-glasses cameras are paired with commercial face-recognition tools, and it was part of the backdrop to the wearable-device bill California considered and ultimately did not enact in 2026 (discussed below).
For California residents who are subjects of facial-recognition scanning, the CPRA provides rights to know what sensitive personal information is collected and to limit its use. For wearers who use apps that identify others via facial geometry, the safest practice is to avoid commercial facial-recognition applications entirely, as the legal landscape is actively developing.
Penalties for recording violations in California
California combines criminal penalties with a civil damages scheme, and a single illegal recording can produce exposure under both simultaneously.
Under Penal Code § 632, a first offense carries a fine of up to $2,500 and imprisonment in county jail up to one year, or state prison, or both. A repeat offense carries a fine of up to $10,000 and the same incarceration range.
On the civil side, Penal Code § 637.2 allows any person whose communication was unlawfully recorded to sue for $5,000 per violation or three times the actual damages, whichever is greater. The $5,000 figure is a statutory minimum: the plaintiff does not need to prove any actual financial harm to recover it. A single recording session capturing a multi-participant confidential conversation could multiply this exposure because each participant who did not consent may bring an independent claim.
California also bars the use of illegally obtained recordings as evidence in any judicial, administrative, or legislative proceeding. This means an illegal smart-glasses recording cannot be admitted in court even if its contents would otherwise be relevant and truthful. The recorder faces criminal and civil exposure and cannot benefit from the recording procedurally.
The civil intrusion upon seclusion tort adds a parallel theory of recovery. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, covert recording of a person in a private or semi-private context without consent can support a civil claim for intrusion upon seclusion even if the recording is never shared. The act of recording itself, if it would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, is sufficient to create liability.
California SB 1130: the vetoed wearable-recording bill
California has no statute written specifically for smart glasses or any other wearable recording device. The Legislature passed one in 2026 and the Governor vetoed it. Senate Bill 1130, introduced on February 17, 2026 by Senator Eloise Gomez Reyes, was the Wearable Device Privacy Protection Act. As amended on May 22, 2026, it passed the California Senate 30-8 on May 27, 2026. After further amendments in the Assembly, it passed the Assembly 57-14 on August 30, 2026, the Senate concurred in the Assembly amendments 29-10 on August 31, 2026, and the enrolled bill was presented to the Governor on September 9, 2026.
The Governor vetoed SB 1130 on September 30, 2026. The Legislature's official bill history records the veto that day, followed by an entry noting that consideration of the Governor's veto is pending in the Senate. Nothing in SB 1130 took effect.
Had it been signed, SB 1130 would have added Penal Code § 632.8. Subsection (b)(1) would have prohibited operating a wearable recording device to capture sound or video of any other person in any area within a place of business where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without that person's explicit consent. Subsection (c) would have separately prohibited disabling any light, sound, or other indicator on the device that signals when it is capturing sound or video. A violation would have carried a fine of up to $1,500 per violation, up to one year in county jail, or both. A companion chapter of the Business and Professions Code, §§ 22949.85 through 22949.88, would have required a prominent capture indicator on wearable recording devices sold in the state beginning January 1, 2028, banned technology designed to defeat such an indicator, and set civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation. None of that is law.
What remains is the general law, and it is not permissive. Penal Code § 632 still makes it a crime to use a recording device to record a confidential communication without the consent of all parties, and the statute turns on the nature of the communication rather than the design of the device, so glasses are treated exactly as a phone or a hidden recorder would be. Penal Code § 647(j) still reaches concealed-camera recording in bathrooms, changing rooms, and other areas where the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy. What the veto left out is narrower than it sounds: there is no wearable-specific offense, no statutory duty to keep an indicator light on, and no design mandate on devices sold in California. The conduct SB 1130 aimed at is still unlawful under § 632 whenever the capture includes the audio of a confidential communication.
The vetoed bill text is available from the California Legislature at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, and the official bill history records the September 30, 2026 veto. Senator Reyes published a summary of the bill's intent when she introduced it, through the Senate District 29 office.
Practical tips for smart-glasses users in California
Following these practices substantially reduces legal exposure under California law.
Let the capture LED shine. Meta's official guidance explicitly states that users should let the capture LED illuminate and should not cover it. SB 1130 would have made disabling that indicator a crime, but it was vetoed on September 30, 2026, so no California statute separately prohibits covering it. That does not make covering it safe: doing so while recording a person without consent removes the only external notice of recording, which a court or jury would likely treat as evidence of deliberate concealment. Keep the LED unobstructed at all times.
Announce recording before starting audio capture. In any setting where participants might have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their spoken words, say clearly before you start: "I am recording this conversation with my glasses." Verbal notice satisfies the "consent" element of § 632 if the other parties continue the conversation with knowledge of the recording. Silence after clear notice is typically treated as implied consent; ambiguous or reluctant continued conversation is riskier.
Obtain affirmative consent in writing for sensitive conversations. If you are recording a business meeting, legal consultation, medical conversation, or any other communication with professional or legal significance, get written confirmation that all participants consent. A quick text message or email exchange before the meeting creates a record.
Disengage audio recording in private settings. Many smart glasses models allow video-only recording or offer a mute function. In California, where the audio component is the source of nearly all legal risk, switching to video-only or muting the microphone in any semi-private setting eliminates § 632 exposure while preserving the ability to capture video.
Never wear recording glasses in restrooms, locker rooms, or changing areas. Even if audio is disabled and even if no recording occurs, wearing glasses that are known to have recording capability in these spaces risks a confrontation. Secretly recording someone who may be undressed in these spaces, without their consent or knowledge and with intent to invade their privacy, is a crime under § 647(j).
Do not use facial-recognition applications with smart glasses in California. The biometric regulatory landscape in California is developing rapidly. Until it stabilizes, using any app that captures or processes facial geometry of identifiable individuals creates exposure under the CPRA and potentially under the civil privacy torts.
For a comprehensive look at California's overall recording consent framework, visit the California recording laws parent page. For audio-specific rules, see California audio recording laws.
This article provides general legal information about California smart-glasses recording laws, not legal advice. Laws can change and individual circumstances vary. Consult a licensed California attorney before recording in any situation where legal liability is a concern.
More California Laws
- California Data Privacy Laws
- California Deepfake Laws
- California Drone Laws
- LAPD Officer's Recording Charges Reduced to Misdemeanors
Frequently Asked Questions
Are smart glasses legal to use in California?
Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in California. No statute bans the device. The legal risk is in how you use them: recording video in public is generally lawful, but recording the audio of a private conversation without all parties' consent violates Penal Code § 632 and can result in criminal charges and civil liability.
Do I need consent to record video with smart glasses in California?
For video-only capture in a public space where people have no reasonable expectation of privacy, consent is generally not required. However, recording video in a private space (home, private office, medical office) can give rise to civil liability even without audio, and secretly recording someone who may be undressed in a restroom, locker room, or changing room, without that person's consent or knowledge and with intent to invade their privacy, is criminal under Penal Code § 647(j).
Do I need consent to record audio with smart glasses in California?
Yes. California Penal Code § 632 requires the consent of ALL parties to a confidential communication before anyone records it. A first offense carries a fine up to $2,500 and up to one year in county jail or state prison. Civil liability under PC 637.2 allows victims to recover $5,000 per violation with no proof of financial harm required.
What counts as a confidential communication under California law?
A confidential communication is one carried on in circumstances that reasonably indicate any party wants it confined to those present. Quiet conversations in offices, meeting rooms, restaurant booths, and private homes typically qualify. Loud conversations in open public spaces, public speeches, and communications at public gatherings do not, because participants have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Can I secretly record someone with smart glasses in California?
No. Recording a confidential communication without all parties' consent is a crime under Penal Code § 632 even if you are a participant in the conversation. The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create an exception. A first offense carries fines up to $2,500 and up to one year in county jail; civil damages start at $5,000 per violation under PC 637.2.
What is California SB 1130 and does it apply to smart glasses?
SB 1130, the Wearable Device Privacy Protection Act, was the bill that would have written smart glasses into California law. It passed both houses and the Governor VETOED it on September 30, 2026, so it never took effect and it applies to nothing. It would have added Penal Code § 632.8, barring the use of a wearable recording device to capture sound or video of another person in an area of a place of business where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy without explicit consent, and separately barring the disabling of the device's capture indicator. California therefore has no wearable-specific recording statute. The general statutes govern: Penal Code § 632 requires every party's consent to record a confidential communication, and Penal Code § 647(j) covers concealed-camera recording in bathrooms, changing rooms, and similar places.
Is covering the recording LED on smart glasses illegal in California?
No. Covering the LED is not separately criminalized in California. SB 1130 would have made disabling a capture indicator a crime under a new Penal Code § 632.8(c), but the Governor vetoed that bill on September 30, 2026, so no such offense exists. Covering the LED while recording without consent still removes the only external notice of recording and strongly supports a finding of deliberate concealment, which can aggravate both criminal and civil exposure under the existing statutes.
Can smart glasses be used for facial recognition in California?
Using smart glasses with facial-recognition software to identify individuals and store or use that biometric data may implicate California's consumer privacy framework (CPRA), which classifies biometric information as sensitive personal information with disclosure and opt-out requirements. California does not have a BIPA-equivalent private right of action for biometric violations, but the regulatory landscape is actively developing and the risks are real.
Updates
Updated the status of California SB 1130, which has passed both houses of the Legislature and was presented to the Governor on September 9, 2026, and aligned the description of its indicator-light provision with the enrolled bill text.
Corrected our description of California Penal Code 647(j) to reflect that lack of consent or knowledge and intent to invade privacy are elements of the offense, clarified the repeat-offense penalty and federal preemption wording, and fixed a mislabeled link.
Corrected the description of Katz v. United States to the two-sided principle the Supreme Court actually stated, removing the claim that it established a rule permitting observation and recording of people in public.
Corrected the description of California SB 1130 to reflect that it adds one new Penal Code section (632.8, with a recording-consent subsection and an indicator-light subsection) plus companion Business and Professions Code provisions, not two Penal Code sections, and updated the bill's procedural status from a June 2026 snapshot to its actual position as of August 2026 (on the Assembly floor for a third reading, not yet law).
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
California Penal Code
§ 632In forcecited in 55 of our articles
(a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 267 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kimmel v. Goland (1990) held the section 47(2) litigation privilege does not bar a damages claim under Section 632 for recording confidential conversations without consent. Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc. (2003) held a Section 632 violation is complete the moment the recording is made, whether or not it is disclosed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rubin v. Green (California Supreme Court 1993, 4 Cal. 4th 1187)“…f telephone conversations with defendants, an offense under Penal Code section 632. We noted that defendants alleged that…”
- Kimmel v. Goland (California Supreme Court 1990, 51 Cal. 3d 202)✓Mobilehome owners secretly taped phone calls with park management in anticipation of suing; the court held the section 47(2) litigation privilege did not bar the cross-complaint for damages under Penal Code section 632, since the injury came from recording, not publication.
- Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (California Supreme Court 1998, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843)✓A TV producer put a wireless microphone on the flight nurse treating a crash victim. No section 632 claim was before the court, but it called section 632 and the intrusion tort laws of general applicability and said the press may not eavesdrop in violation of section 632.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: California Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026)
§ 637.2In forcecited in 24 of our articles
(a) Any person who has been injured by a violation of this chapter may bring an action against the person who committed the violation for the greater of the following amounts: (1) Five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation. (2) Three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff. (b) Any person may, in accordance with Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525) of Title 7 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bring an action to enjoin and restrain any violation of this chapter, and may in the same action seek damages as provided by subdivision (a). (c) It is not a necessary prerequisite to an action pursuant to this section that the plaintiff has suffered, or be threatened with, actual damages. (d) This section shall not be construed to affect Title 4 (commencing with Section 3425.1) of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Civil Code.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 103 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ribas v. Clark (1985) held the section 637.2 award accrues at the moment of the Privacy Act violation, so the Civil Code section 47 litigation privilege does not bar it, though damages flowing solely from privileged testimony fail. Kimmel v. Goland (1990) applied that reasoning to recordings made in anticipation of litigation.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rubin v. Green (California Supreme Court 1993, 4 Cal. 4th 1187)“…asion of privacy and related torts as well as damages under Penal Code section 637.2, granting persons injured by eavesdropp…”
- Ribas v. Clark (California Supreme Court 1985, 38 Cal. 3d 355)✓A wife asked a third party to listen on an extension phone while she called her husband, and that listener later testified about it; the court held the judicial privilege barred damages from the testimony but not Section 637.2's fixed award, which accrues at the violation.
- Kimmel v. Goland (California Supreme Court 1990, 51 Cal. 3d 202)✓Mobilehome residents secretly taped calls with park management to gather evidence for a planned lawsuit; the court held the litigation privilege did not bar management's Section 637.2 claim, because the injury came from the recording itself and not from any publication.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), California Landlord-Tenant Recording and Surveillance Laws (2026), Federal Recording Laws: ECPA, SCA, and CIPA Explained
§ 647In forcecited in 21 of our articles
Except as provided in paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) and in subdivisions (k) and (l), a person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: (a) An individual who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or dissolute conduct in a public place or in a place open to the public or exposed to public view. (b) (1) An individual who solicits, or who agrees to engage in, or who engages in, an act of prostitution with the intent to receive compensation, money, or anything of value from another person. An individual agrees to engage in an act of prostitution when, with specific intent to so engage, the individual manifests an acceptance of an offer or solicitation by another person to so engage, regardless of whether the offer or solicitation was made by a person who also possessed the specific intent to engage in an act of prostitution. (2) An individual who solicits, or who agrees to engage in, or who engages in, an act of prostitution with another person who is 18 years of age or older in exchange for the individual providing compensation, money, or anything of value to the other person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 593 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In re Giannini (1968) set aside convictions under Penal Code 647(a) because the prosecution introduced no evidence of community standards, and equated "lewd or dissolute" with obscenity only for the purpose of judging an allegedly obscene dance performed for an audience.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Morrison v. State Board of Education (California Supreme Court 1969, 1 Cal. 3d 214)“…public beach and the teacher was arrested for violation of Penal Code section 647, subdivision (a), and convicted, on his…”
- People v. Laiwa (California Supreme Court 1983, 34 Cal. 3d 711)“…to arrest him for being under the influence of a narcotic. (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f).) [1] He moved, however, to…”
- In Re Cregler (California Supreme Court 1961, 56 Cal. 2d 308)✓A man previously convicted of theft was arrested for standing in a San Francisco bus station under the pre-1961 vagrancy version of section 647. The court rejected his vagueness challenge, reading loiter to require lingering to commit a crime, and denied habeas relief.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: California Laws on Recording in Public: What Is Legal (2026), California Security Camera and Surveillance Laws: Rules for Home and Business (2026), California Video Recording Laws: Filming, Surveillance, and Consent (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, Hawaii Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent State Rules
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 137 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Surveillance Camera Laws by State (2026 Guide), Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 1801Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 81 of our articles
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. In this section— the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast; the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual; the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means— circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or circumstances in which a…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 53 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have applied 18 U.S.C. 1801 mainly at its edges. United States v. Johnson (2010) read it as Congress's answer to secretly filming nudity on federal property, acquitting on a child exploitation charge instead. EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security (2011) applied the Section 1801(c) law enforcement exception to a TSA scanner claim.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Anthony Helton (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 944 F.3d 198)“…from this list of federal offenses is video voyeurism under 18 U.S.C. § 1801. Rather than list this statute as an enu…”
- United States v. Johnson (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2010, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1059)✓A weightlifting coach hid a camera to film minors weighing in nude; acquitting him under the child exploitation statute, the court called that conduct plain video voyeurism under section 1801, but noted the section reaches only federal maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2011, 653 F.3d 1)✓Privacy groups challenged TSA body scanners under the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act; the D.C. Circuit held the statute's exception for lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity applied to airport screening, so the section 1801 claim failed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Voyeurism Laws, Utah Voyeurism Laws, California Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections (2026)
California Vehicle Code
§ 27602In force
(a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle. (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle: (1) A vehicle information display. (2) A global positioning display. (3) A mapping display. (4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver’s view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Cal. Penal Code § 632 (California Invasion of Privacy Act, all-party consent for confidential communications)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Cal. Penal Code § 637.2 (civil remedy: $5,000 per violation or 3x actual damages)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Cal. Penal Code § 647(j) (voyeurism; recording in private spaces)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- SB 1130, 2025-2026 Cal. Leg. Sess., Wearable Device Privacy Protection Act (would have added Penal Code § 632.8 and Business and Professions Code §§ 22949.85-22949.88; VETOED by the Governor September 30, 2026, never became law)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Senator Eloise Gomez Reyes, Senate District 29 press release on SB 1130 (Feb. 17, 2026)(sd29.senate.ca.gov).gov
- Cal. Vehicle Code § 27602 (prohibition on video screens visible to driver)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (federal Wiretap Act; one-party consent exception at § 2511(2)(d))(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2), § 2510(18) (definitions: oral communication; aural transfer; basis for video-only exclusion from Wiretap Act)(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 1801 (federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act)(law.cornell.edu)
- Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006) (California all-party rule applies to calls involving any California party)(courtlistener.com)
- Meta AI Glasses official privacy page (capture LED documentation; device facts only)(meta.com)
- Meta help: Notification LED on AI glasses (LED location, color codes, brightness)(meta.com)
- SB 1130 Bill History, California Legislative Information (records "Vetoed by the Governor" on 09/30/26 and "Consideration of Governor's veto pending")(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov